English
translation made from the latin text,
transcribed from “EXTRAVAG. IOANN. XXII. TIT. XIV. DE VERBORUM
SIGNIFICATIONE CAP V [1]”, DECRETALIUM CCOLLECTIONES, AKADEMISCHE DRUCK - U.
VERLAGSANSTALT GRAZ, 1959, which was published as a second volume in a
reprint of Codex Iuris Canonicis, ed. B. Tauchnitz, Leipzig,1879.

John
XXIIBishop Servant of the Servants of God

for an everlasting memorial

November 10, 1324 A. D.

The opinion of those detractors,
who presume to impunge John XXII's constitutions “Ad conditorem canonum,” and “Quum
inter nonnullos”, just mentioned above, is reproved. And with the
aforementioned replies having been made to all their objections, at last they
are declared [to be] as heretics and rebels to the Roman Church, [men] to be
avoided by all, if, they thereafter would presume knowingly by word or writing
to defend or approve anything contrary to those [consitutions]. Here follows
under the second and third parts the prolix and useful disputation concerning
the “materia clavium” [that over which the Keys of Peter have authority]:

1.Because
the father of lies is said to have so blinded the minds of certain [men], that
they by [means of] false madness have obscured Our constitutions—not without
much punishable temerity, unless they retract and lean themselves [once more]
upon the truth, which these contain—of which one begins: “Ad conditorem
canonum,” the other indeed: “Quum inter non nullos,”
arranged diligently by previously held deliberation certainly as much with Our
brother Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, as with many Archbishops and
Bishops, and other prelates of the [local] churches, and not a few
masters of sacred theology, and professors of both [kinds] of law [i.e.
civil and canon], and promulgated on the counsel of Our aforementioned
brothers: lest by daring [and] pernicious deeds their pestiferous
doctrine shake the souls of the simple so much, and prevail to lead them into
the deviation of their own errors, on the counsel of certain brother
[cardinals] We judge soberly to make provision concerning this matter, as
follows [below]. Moreover, they have used as much as word as writing to
impugn the aforesaid constitutions, for the alleged reason, as is shown: They
say that “That which the Roman Pontiffs had defined by [means of] the
key of knowledge, in faith and morals, once for all, persists unchangeable to
such an extent, that it is not lawful for a successor to call it again into
doubt, nor to affirm the contrary,” although concerning those things, which
have been ordained by [means of] the key of power, they assert it to be
otherwise.

2. However, in the confirmation of the
rule of the Order of Friars Minor by Honorius III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV,
Alexander IV, Nicholas III, Our predecessors the Supreme Pontiffs, they assert
[that] these words are contained: “This is the evangelical rule of Christ,
the imitator of the Apostles, who had nothing in this world [either] as
their own or in common, but in [those] things which were used, [merely]thesimplexusum facti.” presuming to add to these
that the aforementioned Supreme Pontiffs and many general councils have defined
it by the key of knowledge, that the poverty of Christ and the Apostles
consisted in the perfect expropriation of whatever temporal dominion, civil and
mundane, and that even their sustenance consisted solely and merely in the usus
facti, from which they strive to conclude, that it has not been licit nor
is it licit for their successors to change anything against the aforementioned
things. And for that reason when Our constitution in the aforesaid doctrine
defined (as they assert) things contrary to the definitions of Our aforesaid
predecessors, they satisfy themselves to conclude, although falsely, that is
was not lawful for us to declare or establish that Christ and the Apostles in
those things, which they had, had not only the simplexusus facti,
but [also] the usus faciendi of them, and that scripture
testifies that they did those things, by declaring [i.e. when it declared]
heretical the pertinacious assertion of [those who] say that these same men did
not have the least right of this kind, since [such ones] infer that the
deeds of these men were not just—which is a wicked thing to say about Christ.
Likewise, since the constitution Ad conditorem canonum,asserted
against the aforesaid definitions that the Friars Minor can not have the simplexusus facti in anything, they strive similarly to argue against it.

On account of which moreover, since it was
previously mentioned in the aforesaid consideration, namely, that “It is not
licit for their successors to call again into doubt those things, which were
defined once for all by the key of knowledge in faith or morals by the Supreme
Pontiffs, although it is otherwise,” so they say, “ in regards to those
things, which have been ordained by the Supreme Pontiffs by [means of] the key
of power,” it is evidently clear from the following things [that] this is
directly contrary to the truth. First, indeed following [i.e. in the order
presented by] these men, it is clear that the aforesaid assertors, who hold
that the spiritual key is by no means knowledge, but a power of binding and
loosing, by reckoning it to be knowledge, have erred. In favor of which is the
definition of the “key”, which is given by the doctors [of theology]: “The
key is the special power of binding and loosing, with which the ecclesiastic as
judge should receive the worthy into the Kingdom, and exclude the unworthy .” Likewise,
since the keys, of which We speak, are conferred in the imposition of priestly
orders, it is however well established that knowledge is not normally conferred
upon the man ordained to the priesthood: wherefore, following [the argument
of] these men, it seems that knowledge is not the key, but rather the
ability to bind and loose should be said to be the key. Still following [the
argument of] these men, they are evidently known to have erred, who reckon
that one spiritual key is knowledge, and following [the argument of]
these men, of which the authority to discern between [one] leper and
another they assert to be a key, and the other [key is] the power of binding
and loosing. For they substitute, by means of keys of this kind concerning
those things, which are of the faith, and other [things], the ability to define
[a matter] by means of any constitution. However the keys, which are
conferred in priestly orders, by no means extend themselves to such matters,
because according to the aforementioned [assertions] simple priests would be
able to issue a constitution, which is evidently false. If however they
maintain that those keys extend to the general authority, attributed to blessed
Peter, and to his successors in the person of the same [i.e. acting in his
stead] in the entrusting of the pastoral office, by means of which it seems
at least evident to themselves that they have conceded everything, without
which one would be unable to exercise the care of the universal shepherd
conveniently or exercise freely its office: besides it is clear that even they
themselves have erred. For they say, those things, which are established by the
key of knowledge, have one affect, and those things, which are established by
the key of power, another, supposing that some things, by the key of knowledge,
and others, by the key of power, have been determined or even defined, which is
evidently false. For by means of the key of knowledge, or by the authority to
discern or examine among [one] leper and another leper, (if We would
call this a key), nothing other except the authority to examine [them] is
attributed by means of it to him to which it has been given. However to him, to
whom is given the authority of deciding concerning anything, there is not
understood to have been given [the authority] to define [anything]
concerning it. Wherefore it remains, that to establish anything conveniently,
or to define it, each of the keys, namely, of examining and defining, is
required as necessary; or that to only the key of power does it belong to
establish [anything], and even to define [it]; but, just as the material light
directs the key-bearer in the use of a material key, so likewise he obtains as
much as regards this matter from knowledge instead of light. And this Our
Savior in making the promise of the keys to blessed Peter seems to have
understood expressly, when He immediately adds to that: “And whatever you
will bind on earth, shall be bound even in heaven, and whatever you loose on
earth, will be loosed even in heaven,” making no mention of knowledge.

3. However that which is put forth as the
premise to support the aforesaid doctrine, namely, that in the confirmation and
declaration of the rule of the Friars Minor of not a few of Our predecessors,
namely Honorius III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV, Alexander IV, Nicholas III, words
of this kind are contained: “This is the evangelical rule,” etc. put
forward above, up to: “it is clear consisted even in the mere usus facti:”directly opposes the truth. Honorius indeed confirmed the aforementioned
rule without any declaration, in confirmation of which no mention of the
aforesaid words is had, so that to whomsoever considers [it] attentively he can
dissolve a confirmation of this kind: except in so far as mention is made of
the evangelical life there in the rule itself, as confirmed, when it says: “This
is the rule of the Friars Minor, namely to observe the Holy Gospel of Our Lord
Jesus Christ, by living in obedience, without anything of one's own, and in
chastity.” From which words it cannot be concluded that through that same
predecessor of ours those things, which they themselves assert in [regards to]
the aforesaid words, have been defined. On the contrary it can be concluded
rather, that the evangelical life, which Christ and the Apostles kept, did not
exclude holding anything in common, since one cannot survive without anything
of one's own, on which account, as living men, they would have nothing in
common. Also in the declarations of the aforesaid Gregory, Innocent and
Alexander, who explained the same rule without another confirmation, similarly
no direct mention is made of the aforesaid [words]; rather by means of
these there is evidently shown, of those things, of which it is lawful for the
friars themselves to have, the usus iuris pertains to the order itself.
Indeed Gregory in his declaration, as much as regards this [point]
inserts what follows: “We say, that neither individually nor in common
should they have property, but of the utensils, books, and movable goods, which
it is lawful to have, the order has the use, and the friars may use them
according to what the minister general and the ministers provincial will have
commanded to be arranged [in the matter].” Since it is said in
the declarations spoken of above, that the order may have the use of the
aforementioned things, it is necessary that this be referred to the usus
iuris. Indeed [those] things done [in law], which pertain to
individuals, demand and require a true [legal] person; the order,
however, is not a true person, but rather is to be accounted as one represented
and imaginary. Wherefore [those things] which are done [in law] are
truly unable to pertain to them, granted that these could be suitable to that
which is lawful. Besides granted that the declaration of the aforesaid Nicholas
III may contain these [words] which follow: “These are those
professors of the holy rule, who have been founded upon the evangelical
discourse, strengthened by the example of the life of Christ, and made firm by
the sermons and deeds of the His Apostles, the founders of the Church militant,”[1]and afterwards in the same declaration he added,
saying, “that the abdication of all property, as much as in individual as in
common, is meritorious before God and holy, which even Christ, showing [us]
the way of perfection, taught by word and strengthened by example, and which
the first founders of the Church militant, just as [streams which]
have drained from the fountain itself, in willing to live perfectly have
directed along the stream-beds of their own doctrine and life:” [2] however, from the aforesaid words nothing at all can be
inferred, since the intention of Our aforesaid predecessor, Nicholas, was, to
say, that the said rule in respect to all things which are contained in it, is
founded upon the evangelical discourse, and strengthened by the example of the
life of Christ, and not (sic) because it was strengthened by the life and deeds
of the Apostles. For it is well known that many things are contained in the
said rule, which neither Christ taught by word, nor strengthened by example, in
as much as, what the founder of the rule precepted to all the Friars, that in
no manner they are to receive coins or money through themselves or through an
interposed person, and also even concerning many other things contained in the
said rule, which at any rate neither Christ nor the Apostles taught by word,
nor strengthened by example. Nor does this oppose [the truth], that
Christ forbade the Apostles and the disciples to carry money, when He would
sent them to preach, since nevertheless, before He would send them, We read
that it had been forbidden to them. And that after [their] return they carried
money, the evangelical truth and apostolic sayings bear witness in very many
places. Besides Augustine expressely says that this was not precepted, but
[that] it was lawful for the Apostles [both] to retain, or even not to retain,
the authority to receive necessaries from others, to whom they preached the
Gospel.

4. But this Our predecessor, the Roman
Pontiff Nicholas, in respect to the principle three vows, namely to live in
obedience, and without property, and in chastity, and the other things, if as
things expressed they are found in the Gospel, seems to have understood to say
in the aforesaid declaration regarding the said rule, which at any rate opposes
the above said declarations of Ours in nothing. Besides it does not appear that
he himself said that the sustenance of Christ and His Apostles consisted only
and merely in the simplexusus facti, since as regards Christ and
the Apostles Our aforesaid predecessor Nicholas made no mention. Indeed he
seems to have understood quite expressly that they had had another jus a
proprietate, since concerning solely the abdication of property, not of
another right, in the aforesaid declaration, as much as pertained to them,
mention is had. Besides the same Nicholas, Our predecessor, seems to have
understood that Christ and the Apostles even as regards property had something
in common. For when he would use words concerning the abdication of property,
responding to a tacit objection, which could have been made to him concerning loculi
(i.e. money bags), which [as] is read in the Gospel Christ had had,
immediately he added [these words] which follow: “Nor let anyone
think to resist these things, because it is sometimes said, that Christ had had
loculi.For as Christ Himself, whose works were perfect,
cultivated in His deeds the way of perfection, on which account sometimes,
condescending to the imperfection of the infirm, he would both extol the way of
perfection and not damn the infirm paths of the imperfect: and so Christ in
having taken up loculi set free the person of the infirm.” At
another time there had been the irrelevant objection concerning the loculi,
unless it would have been understood that even Christ as regards property had loculi.
Besides if it would be said that Christ in having had locui [had]
only the simplexusus facti, in vain would it be said that in the
person of the infirm themselves Christ had loculi, when according to him it is
suitable for even the perfect to have the simplexusum facti.
And, if it would be asked on the account of which infirm [persons] He would
have those loculi, Augustine, whose saying has been inserted in the Decrees,
answers, saying: “The Lord, keeping the offerings of the faithful, used to
have loculi, and He used to allot these for His own necessities and for the
needs of others.” Whence it is well known that He Himself understood this
of His own disciples. Nor does this, namely 'having somethings in common and as
regards property,' derogate from the highest poverty according to the saying of
the aforesaid Gregory IX, who in a certain decretal of his expressly says that
the Friar Preachers and the Friars Minor are to serve Christ in the highest
poverty; and yet it is well known that the [Friar] Preachers themselves have
somethings in common even as regards property, which is not repugnant to their
rule or statutes. This even Alexander, our aforesaid predecessor, seems to have
understood in the condemnation of a little book published against the statues
of the [Friar] Preachers and the [Friars] Minor, in which he occasionally he
adds concerning the said friars [those things] which follow, since in addition
he replies that the same friars have forsaken all things for the sake of God,
begging the meagerly supports for life, and that they imitate the poor Christ,
by embracing evangelical perfection. On account of which it is evidently
apparent, that they not only stand forth in the state of those [who are]
to be saved, but also of the perfect, and by the observance of their religion,
which indeed has the form of evangelical perfection, they merit surpassing
glory [for themselves] as a reward of eternal retribution. Indeed where he says
expressly, that the Friar Preachers imitate the poor Christ, and that they
themselves embrace evangelical perfection, and stand forth in the state of the
elect, and that the observance of their own religion has the form of
evangelical perfection, it is however even well known, that they themselves can
have even as regards property somethings in common according to their rule. Nor
does this oppose, what they say, that Innocent V (otherwise Celestine) Our
predecessor had said, that high poverty is having few things of one's own for
the sake of God; higher [poverty], which has no things as one's own, has
however [somethings] in common; the highest [poverty], which has nothing
in this world, neither [has anything] as one's own, nor in common. Indeed We
say, that he said this, not as Pope, but as Friar Peter de Tarentaise [O.P.] in
a certain (writing) of his own, afterwards, wherefore the sayings of the
aforementioned Pontiffs are to be preferred deservedly to his. They also say,
that the Apostle spoke concerning such highest poverty, saying: “And
their most high poverty abounded in the riches of their simplicity.” (1
Cor. 8:2) [3] Which evidently is false since there it speaks
of the poverty of the Macedonians, who even used to posses temporal goods
individually, concerning whom the Apostle claims, that beyond [their] strength
they pitied the saints with their alms. Moreover because in the declaration of
our predecessor Nicholas it is said that the Friars Minor in things, which fall
to them, they may have only the simplexusus facti, We say that
if he himself understood the simplexusus facti as devoid of all
right, in such a way, that the friars themselves or the order would have no jus
utendi, this [would be] expressly against the declaration of
Gregory, Innocent, [and] Alexander, the aforesaid supreme Pontiffs, by whom [i.e.
by whose authority] it expressly contained, that the order would have the
use of such goods; because concerning the usus juris there must be
understood “the necessary,” as has been proved above. Besides We say, that
this, namely the simplex usus facti without any right, is impossible,
(since no one other than oneself can be said to use a thing as one's own,) to
be able in regards to anything to obtain from another a usus that is not
consumable, just as it is proven in the decretal Ad conditorem canonum,and as Augustine holds expressly in Book XI of De actu. Besides
if the use devoid of any right were able to be possessed by anyone, it would be
established that an act of this kind of using would have to be reckoned as not
just, since that would be a use, to which the ius utendi did not
pertain; moreover a not-just use does not pertain in any way to the state of
perfection, nor does it add anything to perfection, but rather is recognized to
be manifestly repugnant to itself. Now it does not seem that the author of the
law [i.e. the Pope] for the Friars understood to reserve for them such a
not-just use. Nay rather, that he understood this of a just [one] is more
evidently able to appear from that which he adds in the same arrangement, that
he was receiving the dominium of these things in his own name and even
of [that] of the Roman Church, of which it would be lawful for the friars or
the order, as said before, to have the usus facti, adding that the
friars themselves should not have the use of all things. Moreover as much as it
pertains to the simplexusus facti without any jus utendi:
as regards the friars there cannot be estimated to be any difference [among]
these things. For in this way they can in fact use prohibited things, as has
been mentioned. From which it follows, that the usus facti, concerning
which [that] arrangement speaks, should be understood of such, which are
just, and for which a jus utendi pertains. And the very author of the
law [i.e. the Pope] seems even to have understood from that which he
added to the same arrangement, that a moderate use as regards things previously
paid for has been conceded to the friars themselves. On the other hand the
assailers of the constitution of this kind are claimed to publicly assert that “the
little book and the sayings of the masters [in theology], of those who assert
that the said poverty and life of the said friars is not evangelical and
apostolic, the Roman Pontiffs have condemned, more broadly prohibiting by
apostolic letters that anyone contumaciously add to the aforesaid things or to
any of the aforementioned things, or in any manner whatsoever presume to defend
[them], [and in] establishing, that he who presumes to do the contrary
is to be treated as contumacious, a rebel to the Roman Church, and a heretic.”
To which We say that an assertion of this kind is false. For there is not
contained, in the passage quoted above, that he [who] does the contrary is to
be treated as a heretic, which indeed [i.e but rather that it] contains
these things which follow: “For We nonetheless by the authority of these
present [documents] do more broadly prohibit that anyone
pertinaciously assert the aforesaid things or any of the aforesaid things or
presume in any manner to defend them. Whosoever truly should presume [to
do] this, let him be treated as contumacious and a rebel of the Roman
Church by all the faithful.” There has not been added, that one is to be
treated as an heretic, as is clear in the text of the aforesaid sentence of
condemnation.

5. On the other hand, it is said that
assertors of this kind have asserted that “the abdication of right in
regards to property of whatever kind and of its use is holy and meritorious for
God's sake, and that this was observed by Christ Himself in regards to Himself,
[that it was] imposed upon the Apostles, and [that is was]
assumed by them under a vow. Nor on this account is the usus facti for the
sustenance of nature as regards Christ and the Apostles proven conclusively to
be not just, but so much more just and more perfect, and more acceptable by
God, and more an exemplary to the world, as more fully it was a renunciation of
all right, on account of which such using can be both compared with a usus of
whatever kind in whatever way and defended in court.” Which assertion
indeed contains many false things, since neither that Christ observed the aforesaid
expropriation of all right in regards to property of whatever kind, or in usus
as regards Himself, nor that He imposed this upon the Apostles, nor that [this
was done] by a vow that had been taken by themselves, does the evangelical
or apostolic history teach, but the contrary is more evidently manifest.
Moreover because in the aforesaid assertion there is added, that “by means
of the abdication of the aforesaid right, namely of property, this usus facti
for the sustenance of nature as regards Christ and the Apostles is not proven
conclusively to be not just, but so much more just etc.,” it includes an
impossibility, and evidently this kind of said error [i.e. as is now
explained: ]. For it is impossible that an extrinsic human act be just, if
the one exercising the very act have no right to exercise it: indeed such use
is necessarily proven conclusively to be not only not just but unjust.
Likewise, it is absurd and erroneous, that the act of anyone, not having the
right to accomplish an act of this kind, would be more just and more acceptable
to God, than [the act] of one having [the right], since one would conclude that
an unjust act would appear just and more acceptable to God than a just one.

Moreover from the aforementioned things they
strive to infer, as has been shown, that the definition of the aforesaid
supreme Pontiffs, which they defined concerning the poverty of Christ and the
Apostles and concerning the rule of the aforesaid Friars Minor, (just as they
have expressed it above), could not be changed by Us; far from doubt they
assert false things, by saying, that Our predecessor have defined such things,
as has been proved above, and thus saying besides, while sufficiently impugning
Our constitutions, they show that those constitutions, on which they support
themselves, to be invalid, erroneous, and refuted (if their false assertions
would show [themselves to be] true). For if it was not lawful for Us to
establish publicly anything against the constitution of Nicholas III, Our
predecessor, on which they especially found themselves, neither was it lawful
for him to establish or declare anything against the statues of the aforesaid
Gregory, Innocent, and Alexander; because nevertheless, according to their
assertion, it is evidently known that he did. For since these [Popes] declared,
in order that the order of Minors would have the use of those things, which it
was lawful for them to have, which necessarily must be referred to the usus
juris, as has been proven above, he himself—according to them—truly
established that neither the order nor the friars should have the jus utendi,
but only just the simplexusus facti, and that in addition he
ordained, decreed, and established that this constitution, arrangement, and
declaration of his own must be observed no less than precisely and inviolably
and for all times by the friars themselves; it is not only well known, that he
would have ordained [something] against the declarations of the aforesaid
predecessors, but that he himself would have even revoked them, as much as
pertains to these things, which his declaration contains. Also Our predecessor
himself in his declaration added, that it pertained to the declaration of the
Apostolic See and to the arrangement of those things, even concerning those
things which he himself had declared, saying thus: “If any ambiguity should
emerge in regards the aforesaid things, let this be brought to the peak of the
Apostolic See, so that from its apostolic authority—to whom alone has it been
conceded to compose statutes in regard to these things, and to explain what has
been composed—there may be manifested in this [matter] the intention [of
what was to have been expressed].” of which nevertheless the
assertors of this kind assert the contrary. Besides it is clear that what they
assert is false. For granted that the aforesaid Innocent III interdicted the
erection of new religious [orders] in general council, his own successors
nevertheless, (not withstanding an interdict of this kind), chose to confirm
many orders, which (with some exceptions) were even dissolved in a certain
measure afterwards by Our predecessor Gregory IX in general council.

6. If therefore after an interdict of a
general council it was lawful for the supreme Pontiffs to confirm orders [that]
had not been confirmed, and for their successors to dissolve completely [those
which] had been so confirmed, is it not wonderful, if, what only the supreme
Pontiff may declare or ordain concerning the rules of [religious] orders, it is
lawful for his successors to declare or to change to other things. Moreover it
is clear that neither the confirmation of the aforesaid [Popes], Honorius,
Gregory, Alexander, and Nicholas [III], was accomplished in general council,
since no general council was celebrated by any of these. Granted that Innocent
IV celebrated a general council, nevertheless during that [council] the above
said declaration of his was not accomplished with the authority of any council.
Nicholas IV, however, neither celebrated a general council, nor declared anything
concerning the said rule. The aforesaid Gregory IX, however, neither confirmed
nor declared the said rule, but in a general council, where there had been not
a few orders of mendicants abolished, he did not abolish the orders of the said
Friars Minor and [Friar] Preachers, but asserted them to be approved, saying
thus: “To these [orders], which the resulting utility of the
universal church, evident from these things, demonstrates as approved, We do
not permit the present constitution to be extended.”

Besides they tell us, where they read assertions
of this kind, that it pertains to faith and morals, that Christ and the
Apostles did not have as regards these things, which they did have, [anything]
but the simplexusus facti? Indeed this does not pertain directly
to faith, since concerning this [matter] there is not any article, neither
[any] under which it is meant to be understood, as is clear in the creeds, in
which the articles of the faith are contained, nor even remotely, unless this
be contained in sacred scripture, by which having been denied all sacred
scripture is reduced to doubts, and by consequence the articles of faith, which
have been proven by means of sacred scripture, are reduced to doubts and
uncertainties. For this cannot be in regard to Sacred Scripture, but the
contrary is discovered [to be the case]. Moreover concerning the
aforesaid Friars Minor what the supreme Pontiff kept, or could have kept, for
himself and to the Roman Church concerning their poverty and simplexusus
facti, or concerning the dominion of those things which are offered to
them, is well known. Nor in the aforesaid creeds, the Gospel, or the Acts of
the Apostles and [their] letters is there had any mention that it is not lawful
for their successor to rid himself of that [which] was reserved, if this seemed
expedient, nor that a successor did not have the force [of authority] to
revoke the procurators constituted by the authority of the supreme Pontiff for
the transactions of the aforesaid order. Whence they cannot conclude from the
aforesaid things, except falsely, but that a successor has the force [of
authority] to ordain something against those things [which] have
been ordained by the supreme Pontiffs concerning such things, because the
aforementioned Nicholas expressly includes [this] in his declaration, as is
contained more fully above.

7. For that reason, lest the fabricators
of lies of this kind and also the assertors of such pestilential, erroneous,
and condemned doctrine, by repressing and confusing certainly every worthy
[doctrine], prevail in boasting and in leading others into error, since they
have dared, by sneaky undertaking and perverse petulance, to defend publicly a
heresy condemned by the aforesaid constitution and even to prove, namely that
Christ and His Apostles in those things, which were appointed [for them] to
have had, they only had the simplexusus facti without any right,
from which (if it were true) it would follow, that the usus of Christ
was not just, which indeed contains blasphemy, and [which is] inimical to the
Catholic Faith, since there is no doubt that this has come forth from
pertinacious and erroneous animosity, after [having taken] counsel of Our
brothers [i.e. the cardinals], We do declare that each and every
[person], who by word or writing on his own or by means of another or others
presumes [to do] such things publicly, and that also they, who teach these in
regards to such things and do as has been aforementioned, have fallen into
condemned heresy, and [are to be treated] as heretics to be avoided. If anyone,
moreover, would presume by word or writing to knowingly defend or approve, one
after the other, the heresies condemned by the constitution Quum inter
praedictam, or either of them, after [having taken] counsel of the same
brother [cardinals], We judge that he is to be visibly treated as a
heretic by all. Besides after [having taken] the counsel of the same brother [cardinals]
We forbid more broadly that [anyone] impugn with insane daring Our above said
constitution, Ad conditorem canonum, which they are [doing], as
has been shown, so that no one may, in word or writing, approve or defend
anything knowingly against the things defined, ordained or accomplished by the
same. If anyone truly would presume [to do such] against [it], let him
be treated by all as contumacious, and a rebel of the Roman Church.

Therefore [it is in nowise licit] to any
man [to infringe this page of Our declarations, statements, composition,
command, constitutions, judgments, and dispositions, nor it is licit to such a
one to oppose this by rash daring: if any one however would presume to attempt
this, let him know that he has incurred the indignation of the Omnipotent God,
and his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.]

Given at Avignon, on the fourth day before the
Ides of November, in the ninth year of Our Pontificate.

John XXII

1 - The Latin text of Nicholas III's constitution “Exiit qui
seminat” , as quoted here, differs from the text printed in the “The
Registers of Nicholas III”, p. 232-241, #564 . That text reads, “Hii sunt
illius sancte regule professores, que evangelico fundatur eloquio, vite Christi
roboratur exemplo, fondatorum militantis Ecclesie apostolorum ejus sermonibus
actibusque firmatur.” which is translated “These are those
professors of the holy rule, which is founded on the evangelical discourse,
strengthened by the example of the life of Christ, and made firm by the sermons
and deeds of His Apostles, the founders of the Church militant.” This
difference, however, does not change the value or conclusions of the argument.

2 - The text of Nicholas III's constitution as quoted here, again differs
from the that which is found in the “Registers of Nicholas III”, as above. That
text reads “quod abdicatio . . .
prout ab ipso fonte auxerant (sic), . . .derivarunt:” which is translated “that the abdication . . .just
as [streams which] had grown from the spring itself, . .have diverted over . .
. “. This is only a question of a variant reading.

3
- The passage cited (1 Cor. 8:2) in the footnotes to the Latin text for this
quote should be 2 Corinthians 8:2, which is “quod in multo experimento
tribulationis abundantia gaudii ipsorum et altissima paupertas eorum abundavit
in divitias simplicitatis eorum “ and is translated “That in much
experience of tribulation, they have had abundance of joy; and their very deep
poverty hath abounded unto the riches of their simplicity.” in the
Douay-Rheims edition of the Vulgate.

The
introductory paragraph is an English translation of the introductory paragraph
from the work cited. All text within the square brackets has been added by the
English translator for the sake of clarity. If such text is in italics then the
words are not contained in the literal meaning of the Latin passage, but are
added here to give the sense of their meaning. The variant readings presented
in the Latin notes have not been used. Finally this translation has been
released to the public domain by its author.